Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4
Filtering by
Description
Previous studies exploring variability in sentencing decisions have consistently found gender differences, such that women receive lighter sentences than men. In the proposed study, I present a new framework for understanding gender differences in sentencing preferences, including circumstances under which no gender differences should emerge. The Affordance Management Approach suggests that our minds are attuned to both group- and individual-level threats and opportunities that others afford us. I conceptualize the sentencing difference between men and women as driven by perceived affordances that assist or hinder an individual in achieving certain fundamental goals. When faced with sanctioning an offender in our community, the offender's sex, the victim's age, and environmental variables such as the ratio of men to women may influence our decision-making, because these factors have affordance implications. Thus, I hypothesized that individuals will express differences in the sentencing of offenders who commit assault, and that these differences vary by offender sex, victim age, and sex-ratio. The results indicate that, as predicted, female offenders received lighter sentencing than men when the offender committed an assault against a same-sex adult, but received equally punitive sentences as men when the assault was committed against a child. In general, results do not support a consistent effect of sex ratio as a factor when making sentencing decisions. Although results do not fully support the current study's specific hypotheses, there remains much to be gained from applying an affordance management perspective to understanding variability in sentencing between the sexes.
ContributorsUzzanti, Charlene Ann (Author) / Neuberg, Steven (Thesis director) / Knight, George (Committee member) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This study hypothesizes that a sampling of prosecutors would be more likely to prosecute juveniles who identify as homosexual versus those who identify as heterosexual. To test this hypothesis, surveys were mailed to 1,000 prosecutors around the United States with a between subject design, meaning that each participant was only exposed to one condition in the vignette they read. There were a total of four vignettes, creating four conditions of different sexual orientations and gender in sexually appropriate relationships. The vignettes contain conditions in which either a male or female junior in high school was videotaped having oral sex with either a male or a female freshman in high school. Prosecutors were asked questions about whether they would prosecute the older student for statutory rape. Results indicated that our manipulations of sexual orientation and gender were not statistically significant on prosecutorial discretion or punishment severity/motives, however, these manipulations did alter the prosecutor's perceptions of the offender.
ContributorsCaraveo Parra, Diana Patricia (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Individuals are often susceptible to bias in their given fields; however, they may not acknowledge nor be aware of this phenomenon. Moreover, people typically can recognize bias in others yet fail to realize that they themselves are susceptible to their own bias. This is referred to as the bias blind spot, an unconscious meta-cognitive bias. Unconscious bias can lead to impaired decisions and can cause problems in the field, especially if professionals are defensive about bias mitigation procedures if they see them as unnecessary and threatening. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze and examine the perceptions that professional forensic psychologists have about bias in themselves and bias in their colleagues. Eighty-four professional forensic psychologists were surveyed and asked about their perception of bias in themselves, their colleagues, an average adult, and experts in another domain: forensic science. For this study, these forensic psychologists were asked to predict the bias that they themselves might have in their judgment, that forensic scientists might have in their judgment, and that the average adult would have. As hypothesized, and consistent with the bias blind spot, professional forensic psychologists rated their peers in the same field as having a higher amount of bias in their decisions than they themselves. Moreover, they also rated other professionals in similar fields (forensic science) as having a higher bias rate than themselves. In addition, participants rated bias mitigating procedures as being a higher threat to their field than a different domain (i.e., forensic science) – consistent with hypotheses. These results suggest that professional forensic psychologists are susceptible to the bias blind spot and its consequences.
Keywords: implicit bias, bias blind spot, perceptions, judgment, mitigating procedures
Keywords: implicit bias, bias blind spot, perceptions, judgment, mitigating procedures
ContributorsVelazquez, Annelisse Danielle (Author) / Neal, Tess (Thesis director) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Past research has shown that serving on a jury can put the jurors under distress. Most research has shown that the nature of the trial (violent vs. non-violent) is a major factor in predicting distress. Though there is a lot of research identifying the distress, there is little research on how to resolve or prevent the distress from occurring in the first place. The purpose of this study is to examine what kinds of treatments prior jurors would have wanted, and to determine how this is related to the specific profiles of symptoms they experienced. To address these research questions, we screened for participants that have served on a violent trial (homicide, rape, child abuse, sexual offenses towards children, and torture) in the last 10 years. They were given the SCL-90 Checklist to measure their symptoms, if any, and then asked to rate a set of possible resources to cope with their stress as to how much they would have wanted the specific resource. Results of the study showed that participants experiencing more distress would have liked more efforts to alleviate that stress and resources afterward. Although these were not linked to any particular symptom profile, seven resources showed a significant relationship between the severity of symptoms and endorsement of those resources. The most desired resources were a thorough understanding of the laws pertaining to the crime; a thorough understanding of the punishments pertaining to the crime; and disclosure of the severity of the evidence to be presented in the trial before it begins. Limitations of this study and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsSauer, Catherine McKenna (Co-author) / Taff, Lindsay (Co-author) / Shiota, Michelle (Thesis director) / Salerno, Jessica (Committee member) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-12